Working
Group on Serials Duplication in the
Electronic Environment
Documents:
Context: Many have noted the increasing duplication of serials in the electronic environment, whether it be through buying both print and electronic versions of a title or multiple electronic versions through more than one vendor (or both). Four easy local examples are the multiple copies we buy of Science (12+ print copies and two online versions from Ovid and the publisher), of the Economist (3+ print and 3 online versions via EBSCO Academic Search, Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, and Dow Jones Interactive), of the New York Times (8+ in print, at least 2 online via Dow Jones Interactive and Academic Universe) and Books in Print (12+ print copies, 1 online version via OCLC). While the reasons for duplication of print versions in the dispersed Yale environment may be easy to identify, they become less certain in an electronic world. In light of the Medical Library's decision to make changes and cancellations that generated $43,000 in savings, the Collection Development Council believes it is time to consider the issue more widely, even though issues of duplication have been considered before. The work of the CDC News Resources Working Group taught us that we are not likely to get rid of all duplication, but that discussion of examples can reveal patterns and suggest collection strategies. Charge: The CDC Electronic Duplicates Working Group will consider duplication among electronic resources and between electronic and print versions of the same title, with an eye toward greater efficiency and cost savings. While the main focus of its work will be serials, it is encouraged to consider some annual and reference works as well. While the group is not charged to compile a complete list of duplicates, it may be able to estimate the number, describe patterns of such duplication, and propose ways to achieve cost savings. Another useful task the group will perform is to identify the reasons we buy duplicates. Enumerating those reasons, particularly in support of services, will be useful to the larger selector community. Finally, the group will develop some guidelines to aid librarians considering whether to retain or cancel duplicates - that is, some principles that will identify circumstances that argue for duplication and circumstances that argue for cancellation when there is more than one copy and an electronic version. Timeline: In the emergent electronic marketplace, this problem is likely to grow; a final solution cannot be expected. The work of this group, therefore, need not be hasty, especially given other large projects currently underway. A suggested timeline is: initial report to CDC on the likely extent of duplication and reasons we duplicate by April 2001, suggested duplication/cancellation guidelines for approval by CDC in June 2001, and final report in August 2001, in time for the possibility of serials cancellations for the calendar year 2002. Members: The following people have agreed to serve: Cynthia Crooker (Medical) to serve as Chair
© 2006
Yale University Library Send comments to ann.okerson@yale.edu |
